- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 9019
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:04 pm
#90630
Complete Question Explanation
Justify the Conclusion, Principle. The correct answer choice is (D).
With Justify questions, your task is to identify the missing premise from an author's argument. Here, a physician is raising a concern they have with the claims made by proponents of red wine. While the author concedes that there is evidence that drinkers of moderate amounts of red wine are less likely to fall victim to heart disease, the author finds the lack of an identified biochemical mechanism to explain this difference as problematic. They then conclude that the aforementioned evidence is inconclusive.
A lot of Justify question arguments have a sort of implicit "crux" or dealbreaker that needs to be stated more explicitly for the conclusion to be sufficiently drawn. Here, it's the lack of an applicable biochemical mechanism. Proponents of red wine could respond with "So what? Why is it such a dealbreaker that we have identified the specific biochemical mechanism yet? I feel the evidence safely justifies our conclusion as is." That's why we need to look for an answer choice that specifically states that the lack of a mechanism is in fact a dealbreaker.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice doesn't mention a mechanism, so we can skip it.
Answer choice (B): Like B, this answer choice doesn't mention a mechanism. Skip.
Answer choice (C): No mechanism? No deal. Skip!
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Here we go. Not only is a mechanism finally mentioned, but this answer choice mentions mechanisms in the correct way. This answer choice essentially says that in order for evidence regarding health benefits of foods or drinks to be conclusive, it must specifically mention the mechanisms involved. If it fails to do so, the evidence is not conclusive. Assuming this allows us to conclude that the evidence regarding the health benefits of red wine is in fact inconclusive.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice mentions a mechanism (yay!) but in a jumbled, conditional way that doesn't help us (not yay). It's not that we should only try to find a mechanism if the benefits have been conclusively demonstrated, but rather that we cannot call evidence conclusive unless it specifically identifies the mechanism involved.
Justify the Conclusion, Principle. The correct answer choice is (D).
With Justify questions, your task is to identify the missing premise from an author's argument. Here, a physician is raising a concern they have with the claims made by proponents of red wine. While the author concedes that there is evidence that drinkers of moderate amounts of red wine are less likely to fall victim to heart disease, the author finds the lack of an identified biochemical mechanism to explain this difference as problematic. They then conclude that the aforementioned evidence is inconclusive.
A lot of Justify question arguments have a sort of implicit "crux" or dealbreaker that needs to be stated more explicitly for the conclusion to be sufficiently drawn. Here, it's the lack of an applicable biochemical mechanism. Proponents of red wine could respond with "So what? Why is it such a dealbreaker that we have identified the specific biochemical mechanism yet? I feel the evidence safely justifies our conclusion as is." That's why we need to look for an answer choice that specifically states that the lack of a mechanism is in fact a dealbreaker.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice doesn't mention a mechanism, so we can skip it.
Answer choice (B): Like B, this answer choice doesn't mention a mechanism. Skip.
Answer choice (C): No mechanism? No deal. Skip!
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Here we go. Not only is a mechanism finally mentioned, but this answer choice mentions mechanisms in the correct way. This answer choice essentially says that in order for evidence regarding health benefits of foods or drinks to be conclusive, it must specifically mention the mechanisms involved. If it fails to do so, the evidence is not conclusive. Assuming this allows us to conclude that the evidence regarding the health benefits of red wine is in fact inconclusive.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice mentions a mechanism (yay!) but in a jumbled, conditional way that doesn't help us (not yay). It's not that we should only try to find a mechanism if the benefits have been conclusively demonstrated, but rather that we cannot call evidence conclusive unless it specifically identifies the mechanism involved.